6 ms·

Developers Vs. Bigcorp

39 points by pytrin 14y ago

andybak 14y ago
I'm curious as to US attitudes to unions. I get the feeling they are viewing more positively (although ambivalently in Europe/UK) whilst anti-union sentiment is more deeply ingrained in the US. (The UK is probably an interesting middle-ground as it is in some other areas)
- pytrin 14y ago
  Most professions in the U.S have unions. The most publicized are their sport player unions, which have perfected the art of collective bargaining. Worker unions are a part of U.S culture.
  - aaronbrethorst 14y ago
    Not true[1], and despite the current, small uptick in numbers, I suspect that union membership will continue to fall due to the rise right to work laws around the US[2]. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_unions_in_the_United_States#Membership http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_unions_in_the_United_Stat... [2] http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/03/what-are-right-to-work-laws http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/03/what-are-right-t...
    - pytrin 14y ago
      Not sure what you refer to as not true - most professions in the U.S have a union. I didn't say most workers are a part of it.
      - 001sky 14y ago
        The word 'profession' and the data are both leading you astray. In 2010, the percentage of workers belonging to a union in the United States (or total labor union "density") was 11.4%, compared to 18.6% in Germany, 27.5% (Historically,"professions" were medecine, law, and accountaincy etc...as opposed to the "trades" It was only the trades which had unions. US, we have public sector unions (very large), including teachers, etc. Public sector = "Bureaucrats"!= professions.
      - FJim 14y ago
        What does that even mean?
        pytrin 14y ago
        A profession is a vocation founded upon specialized high educational training (Wikipedia). For example, you can have a doctor union - it doesn't mean that every doctor is a member in it.
        001sky 14y ago
        Part of this was also structural, if you think about it. the professionals were typically self-employed or partnerships. The professionals, in other words, were the bosses/upper management. The need for a union, somewhat redundant. Notice, that changes when the State becomes involved. Then you do see, say teachers unions. Hope this helps.
        pytrin 14y ago
        I said professions, not professionals.
        001sky 14y ago
        Historically, professions = Upper/Ruling Classes. Members of the ruling class don't (at least historically want/need) form unions precisely because they are/were the ruling class. [Edit: Professional Associations i believe were fairly common, as a vehicle to further the interests of a specific profession.]
        lutusp 14y ago
        > Historically, professions = Upper/Ruling Classes Perhaps within the last 100 years, but not "historically" in a general or broad sense. The historical ruling class didn't have professions, they had power.
        14y ago
  - scarmig 14y ago
    Increasingly not, though. The US has always lagged behind other Western countries in union membership, and although most countries have seen a decline, in the US it's been particularly severe. Perhaps worse, that decline has been much stronger in the private sector: the only places unions really have seen any even moderate victories in recent decades is either public workers or in artificial markets created by the State (such as California's homecare workers). Culturally there's a big difference, too. While in Europe unions and corporations tolerate and even co-operate with each other (German companies have, I believe, half of their board members controlled by labor unions), in the USA they are very antagonistic. Either because of that or causing that, most unions in the USA are effectively nominal with no real power.
aaronbrethorst 14y ago
Speaking as a rather rabidly liberal software developer, allow me to respond to one point: "Here's to hoping that the 21st century Jimmy Hoffa will be a developer." Please, no: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Hoffa#Prison_sentence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Hoffa#Prison_sentence. He was incredibly corrupt.
- pytrin 14y ago
  You are taking it too literally, I was referring of course to his influence on making the teamsters one of the strongest unions in American history, not wishing for a carbon copy of Jimmy Hoffa. Second, not to slide off topic, but it's hard to know how much of that was fact and how much of it was because of the many political enemies he made during his ascent.
  - aaronbrethorst 14y ago
    How about using César Chávez as your example, then?
    - pytrin 14y ago
      Noted, and updated the article :) Not a big history buff myself, always interesting to learn new things
    - krakensden 14y ago
      Cesar Chavez was more Ballmer than Ghandi. Besides, the other lesson of the UFW is that your labor can be replaced by a machine.
yurylifshits 14y ago
Maybe there is a simpler solution then a full-blown union. A good start is simply a list of demands + a list of possible protest actions. Developers did it really well with Stop SOPA.
- pytrin 14y ago
  That's exactly what a union does, just on a full time basis. So you have an organization you can appeal to every time there's need for action.
mey 14y ago
I have no desire to join a union. You and I have plenty of bargaining power without one. Nor can a union represent this very diverse field. Unions are fantastic when there is no bargaining power, horrible conditions and most critically no mobility. Coal Miners in a town in the middle of Pennsylvania come to mind. You and I have plenty of mobility. Hell I have moved across the US three times for various jobs and can find work all over the world while sitting on my butt where I am. If you are building on someone else's platform, you should know there is more to that then technical risk. There is business risk. Did Twitter pay you to develop against their API, did you have them sign an SLA when they return an fail whale? Once you realize that you are tying your business lively hood to a transient non-binding agreement, you might think twice. Then you will use your mobility and go another direction. Are external developers what make these tech companies great? Balmer got that one right. (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6304687408656696643 http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6304687408656696643) But to suggest a union? Won't see me paying dues.
- asmithmd1 14y ago
  You as an individual have no bargaining power when "signing" Apple's or Twitters's developer agreement - it is take what they offer or leave it. If we banded together it might be possible to negotiate with big companies. Every engineer thinks they are better off without a union because they are above average and would be pulled down by joining a group of average workers.
  - derleth 14y ago
    > Every engineer thinks they are better off without a union because they are above average and would be pulled down by joining a group of average workers. Or by being told what they can do and how much they can make based on seniority, not skillset and talent.
    - asmithmd1 14y ago
      Steelworkers and teachers unions negotiated agreements that based pay on seniority - I can't imagine developers would do anything like that. Wouldn't you like to have some kind of transparent review process for iPhone apps? Or an agreement that the Twitter API will be available for 5 years? Good luck negotiating that on your own.
greghinch 14y ago
How would a union negotiate API usage limits that Twitter places on 3rd party developers? Unions as a whole have become pretty detrimental to society, no matter how much they originally helped. More importantly, think of something to build besides another damn Twitter client. If you can't, get a job like everyone else until you have a better idea you can execute.
- pytrin 14y ago
  I didn't offer any easy solutions, only the concept of a body that can represent many developers in order to have actual leverage against those companies. Twitter is just one example.
  - greghinch 14y ago
    So a union would help workers negotiate things like wages, benefits, and overall treatment of workers. What you are proposing with this analogy is some kind of organization that would somehow have the power from outside of a given business to force that business to adopt practices preferred by third parties. Not really the same thing, not sure how you would go about forming such an entity, and frankly it sounds pretty terrible for the business climate as a whole.
    - pytrin 14y ago
      A union doesn't have to necessarily regulate wages - just be a source for developer grievance against companies that generate value from their work. Also consider that you don't have to be a part of the union if you don't agree with its principles. The only power a union has is from his members willing to negotiate collectively, there's nothing more to it.
      - greghinch 14y ago
        The fundamental difference remains: a union is for influencing an organization by employees for the employees (within). What you want is to influence on behalf third parties with no affiliation with the organization.
Beanis 14y ago
Developer work is too varied to have a single consistent voice. Drop the union idea, the word has too much baggage and becomes a huge people management issue. Turn it into what developers do best, build an app/api. I'm not sure if this idea will make too much sense; I need to see if I can find some time to explore it a little more. I could see building an app/api which is a mixture of a news/issue aggregator and a remote config editor. Figure out how to surface issues to developers in a consistent way. Then let developers decide which issues matter to them, and how to deliver updated configs. Then let developers decide how to use the api/config from there. Maybe some apps will decide to disable in-app purchases for some time period, maybe some will alter code-flows to use a competitor of a big company, maybe some app will praise some company for their stance on some issue. The developers need to be in full control at all times though. The api would let developers read the remote config from their apps. Maybe it just turns into a remote config service, and the activism part gets lost... but it might work as a vehicle for this kind of activism too.
- pytrin 14y ago
  Perhaps "union" is too loaded of a word. My intentions was for a body that can collectively bargain on behalf of developers against companies that right now are treating them as they will since as individuals they have no leverage or recourse.
  - krakensden 14y ago
    Unions originally worked because they could stop the flow of all labor (union or not) into a job site. Now there is a legal process that avoids the violent bits, but it doesn't really apply to the current situation. Moreover,the equivalent to a picket line is what, a DDOS? Shit will get you sent to jail, yo. The structure of desirable APIs <-> Developers makes collective bargaining not super useful.
    - pytrin 14y ago
      No, it's much more simple than that. Developers can simply cut their apps from the ecosystem for a short while. Or move to another platform in large numbers. Just the threat of each action should cause those companies to consider some concessions.
mynameishere 14y ago
An engineer working in a steel factory. Question: Can he carry a screwdriver. Answer: No. Reason: Union rules. Please just drop shit you have no knowledge of.
elchief 14y ago
You don't call it a union, silly. A union is for socialists. You call it a Professional Association. The same way doctors and accountants do. It's essentially the same as a union, but it's for rich, conservative people.
knewter 14y ago
My dad had his life threatened by union workers for working overtime on a job he was overseeing installation of (robotics engineer). They told him to stop working because he was making them look bad (he was working well into the night because he was away from home and had nothing better to do, plus that's just who he is). He thought they were joking, ignored them. They came back with muscle and told him in no uncertain terms to put down his wrench or they would beat him. This happened while he was working away from home when I was learning how to walk. I run a business right now, and have run several others. I would rather shut the doors to my businesses than be strongarmed by union thugs. I know I'm not alone in this. Ideologically, unionism isn't necessarily horrible. Practically, it involves all sorts of illegal activity that is forgiven because of labor relations. There are a ton of legal exemptions in place for unions in the US. I don't know why I even got into this conversation, but I wanted to make it clear that there are plenty of business owners that would rather offer zero jobs and make less money themselves than offer a single job to a unionized worker.

39 points by pytrin 14y ago

I'm curious as to US attitudes to unions. I get the feeling they are viewing more positively (although ambivalently in Europe/UK) whilst anti-union sentiment is more deeply ingrained in the US. (The UK is probably an interesting middle-ground as it is in some other areas)

pytrin 14y ago
Most professions in the U.S have unions. The most publicized are their sport player unions, which have perfected the art of collective bargaining. Worker unions are a part of U.S culture.
- aaronbrethorst 14y ago
  Not true[1], and despite the current, small uptick in numbers, I suspect that union membership will continue to fall due to the rise right to work laws around the US[2]. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_unions_in_the_United_States#Membership http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_unions_in_the_United_Stat... [2] http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/03/what-are-right-to-work-laws http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/03/what-are-right-t...
  - pytrin 14y ago
    Not sure what you refer to as not true - most professions in the U.S have a union. I didn't say most workers are a part of it.
    - 001sky 14y ago
      The word 'profession' and the data are both leading you astray. In 2010, the percentage of workers belonging to a union in the United States (or total labor union "density") was 11.4%, compared to 18.6% in Germany, 27.5% (Historically,"professions" were medecine, law, and accountaincy etc...as opposed to the "trades" It was only the trades which had unions. US, we have public sector unions (very large), including teachers, etc. Public sector = "Bureaucrats"!= professions.
    - FJim 14y ago
      What does that even mean?
      - pytrin 14y ago
        A profession is a vocation founded upon specialized high educational training (Wikipedia). For example, you can have a doctor union - it doesn't mean that every doctor is a member in it.
        001sky 14y ago
        Part of this was also structural, if you think about it. the professionals were typically self-employed or partnerships. The professionals, in other words, were the bosses/upper management. The need for a union, somewhat redundant. Notice, that changes when the State becomes involved. Then you do see, say teachers unions. Hope this helps.
        pytrin 14y ago
        I said professions, not professionals.
        001sky 14y ago
        Historically, professions = Upper/Ruling Classes. Members of the ruling class don't (at least historically want/need) form unions precisely because they are/were the ruling class. [Edit: Professional Associations i believe were fairly common, as a vehicle to further the interests of a specific profession.]
        lutusp 14y ago
        > Historically, professions = Upper/Ruling Classes Perhaps within the last 100 years, but not "historically" in a general or broad sense. The historical ruling class didn't have professions, they had power.
        14y ago
- scarmig 14y ago
  Increasingly not, though. The US has always lagged behind other Western countries in union membership, and although most countries have seen a decline, in the US it's been particularly severe. Perhaps worse, that decline has been much stronger in the private sector: the only places unions really have seen any even moderate victories in recent decades is either public workers or in artificial markets created by the State (such as California's homecare workers). Culturally there's a big difference, too. While in Europe unions and corporations tolerate and even co-operate with each other (German companies have, I believe, half of their board members controlled by labor unions), in the USA they are very antagonistic. Either because of that or causing that, most unions in the USA are effectively nominal with no real power.

aaronbrethorst 14y ago

Speaking as a rather rabidly liberal software developer, allow me to respond to one point: "Here's to hoping that the 21st century Jimmy Hoffa will be a developer." Please, no: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Hoffa#Prison_sentence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Hoffa#Prison_sentence. He was incredibly corrupt.

pytrin 14y ago
You are taking it too literally, I was referring of course to his influence on making the teamsters one of the strongest unions in American history, not wishing for a carbon copy of Jimmy Hoffa. Second, not to slide off topic, but it's hard to know how much of that was fact and how much of it was because of the many political enemies he made during his ascent.
- aaronbrethorst 14y ago
  How about using César Chávez as your example, then?
  - pytrin 14y ago
    Noted, and updated the article :) Not a big history buff myself, always interesting to learn new things
  - krakensden 14y ago
    Cesar Chavez was more Ballmer than Ghandi. Besides, the other lesson of the UFW is that your labor can be replaced by a machine.

yurylifshits 14y ago

Maybe there is a simpler solution then a full-blown union. A good start is simply a list of demands + a list of possible protest actions. Developers did it really well with Stop SOPA.

pytrin 14y ago
That's exactly what a union does, just on a full time basis. So you have an organization you can appeal to every time there's need for action.

mey 14y ago

I have no desire to join a union. You and I have plenty of bargaining power without one. Nor can a union represent this very diverse field. Unions are fantastic when there is no bargaining power, horrible conditions and most critically no mobility. Coal Miners in a town in the middle of Pennsylvania come to mind. You and I have plenty of mobility. Hell I have moved across the US three times for various jobs and can find work all over the world while sitting on my butt where I am. If you are building on someone else's platform, you should know there is more to that then technical risk. There is business risk. Did Twitter pay you to develop against their API, did you have them sign an SLA when they return an fail whale? Once you realize that you are tying your business lively hood to a transient non-binding agreement, you might think twice. Then you will use your mobility and go another direction. Are external developers what make these tech companies great? Balmer got that one right. (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6304687408656696643 http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6304687408656696643) But to suggest a union? Won't see me paying dues.

asmithmd1 14y ago
You as an individual have no bargaining power when "signing" Apple's or Twitters's developer agreement - it is take what they offer or leave it. If we banded together it might be possible to negotiate with big companies. Every engineer thinks they are better off without a union because they are above average and would be pulled down by joining a group of average workers.
- derleth 14y ago
  > Every engineer thinks they are better off without a union because they are above average and would be pulled down by joining a group of average workers. Or by being told what they can do and how much they can make based on seniority, not skillset and talent.
  - asmithmd1 14y ago
    Steelworkers and teachers unions negotiated agreements that based pay on seniority - I can't imagine developers would do anything like that. Wouldn't you like to have some kind of transparent review process for iPhone apps? Or an agreement that the Twitter API will be available for 5 years? Good luck negotiating that on your own.

greghinch 14y ago

How would a union negotiate API usage limits that Twitter places on 3rd party developers? Unions as a whole have become pretty detrimental to society, no matter how much they originally helped. More importantly, think of something to build besides another damn Twitter client. If you can't, get a job like everyone else until you have a better idea you can execute.

pytrin 14y ago
I didn't offer any easy solutions, only the concept of a body that can represent many developers in order to have actual leverage against those companies. Twitter is just one example.
- greghinch 14y ago
  So a union would help workers negotiate things like wages, benefits, and overall treatment of workers. What you are proposing with this analogy is some kind of organization that would somehow have the power from outside of a given business to force that business to adopt practices preferred by third parties. Not really the same thing, not sure how you would go about forming such an entity, and frankly it sounds pretty terrible for the business climate as a whole.
  - pytrin 14y ago
    A union doesn't have to necessarily regulate wages - just be a source for developer grievance against companies that generate value from their work. Also consider that you don't have to be a part of the union if you don't agree with its principles. The only power a union has is from his members willing to negotiate collectively, there's nothing more to it.
    - greghinch 14y ago
      The fundamental difference remains: a union is for influencing an organization by employees for the employees (within). What you want is to influence on behalf third parties with no affiliation with the organization.

Beanis 14y ago

Developer work is too varied to have a single consistent voice. Drop the union idea, the word has too much baggage and becomes a huge people management issue. Turn it into what developers do best, build an app/api. I'm not sure if this idea will make too much sense; I need to see if I can find some time to explore it a little more. I could see building an app/api which is a mixture of a news/issue aggregator and a remote config editor. Figure out how to surface issues to developers in a consistent way. Then let developers decide which issues matter to them, and how to deliver updated configs. Then let developers decide how to use the api/config from there. Maybe some apps will decide to disable in-app purchases for some time period, maybe some will alter code-flows to use a competitor of a big company, maybe some app will praise some company for their stance on some issue. The developers need to be in full control at all times though. The api would let developers read the remote config from their apps. Maybe it just turns into a remote config service, and the activism part gets lost... but it might work as a vehicle for this kind of activism too.

pytrin 14y ago
Perhaps "union" is too loaded of a word. My intentions was for a body that can collectively bargain on behalf of developers against companies that right now are treating them as they will since as individuals they have no leverage or recourse.
- krakensden 14y ago
  Unions originally worked because they could stop the flow of all labor (union or not) into a job site. Now there is a legal process that avoids the violent bits, but it doesn't really apply to the current situation. Moreover,the equivalent to a picket line is what, a DDOS? Shit will get you sent to jail, yo. The structure of desirable APIs <-> Developers makes collective bargaining not super useful.
  - pytrin 14y ago
    No, it's much more simple than that. Developers can simply cut their apps from the ecosystem for a short while. Or move to another platform in large numbers. Just the threat of each action should cause those companies to consider some concessions.

mynameishere 14y ago

An engineer working in a steel factory. Question: Can he carry a screwdriver. Answer: No. Reason: Union rules. Please just drop shit you have no knowledge of.

elchief 14y ago

You don't call it a union, silly. A union is for socialists. You call it a Professional Association. The same way doctors and accountants do. It's essentially the same as a union, but it's for rich, conservative people.

knewter 14y ago

My dad had his life threatened by union workers for working overtime on a job he was overseeing installation of (robotics engineer). They told him to stop working because he was making them look bad (he was working well into the night because he was away from home and had nothing better to do, plus that's just who he is). He thought they were joking, ignored them. They came back with muscle and told him in no uncertain terms to put down his wrench or they would beat him. This happened while he was working away from home when I was learning how to walk. I run a business right now, and have run several others. I would rather shut the doors to my businesses than be strongarmed by union thugs. I know I'm not alone in this. Ideologically, unionism isn't necessarily horrible. Practically, it involves all sorts of illegal activity that is forgiven because of labor relations. There are a ton of legal exemptions in place for unions in the US. I don't know why I even got into this conversation, but I wanted to make it clear that there are plenty of business owners that would rather offer zero jobs and make less money themselves than offer a single job to a unionized worker.